Figure AI

• No reference to Indigenous knowledge, data sovereignty, or CARE Principles anywhere in the public-facing material.
• The product framing ('a general purpose humanoid robot for every day') universalizes a single notion of the domestic and the workplace with no cultural situating.

• No acknowledgment of Indigenous data sovereignty or community consultation.
• No engagement with non-textual, embodied, or relational knowledge traditions despite the lab's explicit claim to embodied intelligence.
• The Helix model is trained on data whose provenance and consent basis are entirely undisclosed.

Total absence. An embodied-AI lab making robots that enter homes and reproduce human physical labour is precisely the kind of actor for whom relational, embodied, and place-based knowledge is most relevant, yet there is zero acknowledgment. Floor score.

• The master plan offers a thin economic-historical frame, citing 'over 10 million unsafe or undesirable jobs in the U.S. alone' and that 'manual labor compensation' is '~50% of global GDP'.
• A 30-year vision is asserted, gesturing at long time horizons.

• No acknowledgment of colonial or extractive legacies in data, mineral (rare-earth/lithium/cobalt) supply chains, or the global history of labour displacement by automation.
• No reflection on the geopolitical economy of GPUs, actuators, or the offshore manufacturing the plan depends on.
• Temporal framing is triumphalist and linear; automation is presented as inheritance-free progress.

A gesture at economic history exists but it is instrumental and US-centric, with no historical humility about extraction, colonial supply chains, or prior waves of automation harm. Low.

• Site operates primarily in English with no multilingual presence.
• Household and workplace 'tasks' are framed as universal, culturally neutral categories.

• No multilingual support beyond English token presence.
• No consultation with cultural scholars on how domestic space, care work, or labour are culturally constituted.
• Western categorical logic ('jobs humans don't want') is presented as universal.

Monolingual, mono-cultural framing of what a 'home' and a 'job' are. A robot designed to perform care and domestic labour across cultures with no cross-cultural reasoning is a serious flattening. Floor.

• The lab names a specific technical system ('Helix') and five technical pillars (hardware design, unit-cost reduction, safety-standards compliance, volume manufacturing, autonomous AI).
• Operates a closed, proprietary stack.

• No open weights, no third-party replication protocol, no independent bias or safety audit of Helix.
• No disclosed limitation or failure-mode documentation despite robots operating physically around humans.
• Claims of capability ('navigate unpredictable, ever-changing home environments') are unverified by any published evaluation.

Closed weights, no independent audits, no published evals, no failure-mode disclosure. Naming a system and citing standards-compliance is the floor of evidentiary practice; physical-world claims go unverified. Low.

• Communication is uniformly utilitarian: 'utility', 'tasks', 'capabilities'.
• No affective, intuitive, or aesthetic register.

• No acknowledgment of the uncanny, affective, or emotional dimensions of a humanoid entering domestic and care space.
• No space for ambiguity or poetic uncertainty; everything is framed as efficiency.
• Emotional labour (especially in the named 'elder care' use case) is reduced to a 'task'.

An explicitly anthropomorphic machine for homes and elder care is treated purely as a utility engine, with no recognition of the affective weight of putting a humanoid into intimate space. Floor.

• The master plan is unusually direct about labour: it openly targets jobs and frames automation against '~50% of global GDP' in manual-labour compensation.
• It makes an explicit refusal commitment: no 'military or defense applications, nor any roles that require inflicting harm on humans.'
• Asserts a 30-year horizon and names elder care, logistics, manufacturing futures.

• Engages displacement as an opportunity, not a risk: no transition plan, no wealth-distribution mechanism, no worker voice in shaping the transition (the lab's own material flags 'wealth distribution mechanisms' as absent).
• No environmental or energy-cost disclosure for manufacturing at the 'volume' scale it requires.
• No democratic or participatory governance of agentic humanoids; the future is decided by the founder's vision, not deliberation.

Relatively the strongest lens: an explicit refusal commitment plus candid labour framing lift it above the floor. But the displacement question is reframed as benefit with no transition justice, no environmental disclosure, and no democratic governance, capping it low-mid.

• The 'jobs humans don't want' framing names the workers whose labour is targeted but gives them no voice.
• Names 'elder care' as a use case, implicating a vulnerable population.

• No labour-representative or union engagement despite directly targeting manual-labour jobs.
• No participatory design with Global South developers or with the manufacturing workers in the supply chain.
• No disability-community or elder-community consultation despite an elder-care use case; an accessibility-statement link exists but no substantive accessibility commitment.
• No compensated feedback channels.

The people most affected (displaced manual workers, supply-chain labour, elders, disabled people) are objects of the plan, never participants in it. Naming a group is not seating them at the table. Floor.

• Zero self-irony or willingness to test the official narrative against its opposite.
• The seriousness of the founder's '30-year vision' is treated as exempt from question.

• No naming of the central contradiction: a plan to remove '~50% of global GDP' in wages that simultaneously has 'no wealth distribution mechanism' — the absurd edge (who buys anything once labour is automated?) is never confronted.
• The 'jobs humans don't want' euphemism is never inverted to ask who decided, or what happens to those who needed those jobs.
• No structural space where the polished consensus is allowed to be contradicted.

Fully solemn, contradiction-smoothing corporate narrative. The richest available irony (eliminate the wage base with no redistribution) sits untouched in its own document. Floor.